Now.... does he mean that it took 3 hours for his insulated load cell to increase the temperature of 175 mL of water by 14.4 degrees C?

It takes (14.4 degrees x 175 mL) = 2520 Joules to heat that water that much. 3 hours is 10800 seconds, and a Watt is a Joule per Second, so the average power needed simply to heat the water is 2520 Joules PER 10800 seconds, or 2520/10800 = about a quarter of a Watt average, over the entire period.  (or 0.233333333..... Watt if you prefer.)

The circuit, according to gmeast's measurements, took 0.43885 Watt to do it ( measured to the hundredth of a milliWatt how? ), for a heating efficiency of 0.23333/0.43885 or a little over 50 percent. Most of the losses probably occur in the  mosfet itself, and through the insulation of the load cell.

Where did gmeast's " .9766867Watt to do that" (sic) number come from, can anyone tell me? Is this a calibrated measurement?

The only way I can see that figure being in some way correct, is if 0.97-blah-blah is the calculated instantaneous power during the on phase of his duty cycle, making his duty cycle ~25%. That would let him arrive at the correct total energy required for that increase in temp.? Very hard to tell from the phrasing used.

Can't you be more specific, .99? Just where, exactly, is Ainslie wrong?

 


And three months of careful and patient explanation, poynt by carefully argued poynt, are gone ... like tears in rain.

I too initally believed gmeast to be acting in good faith and to be a person of integrity, since he quickly identified the problem with the 555 timer published, and never corrected, by Ainslie so long ago in the Quantum magazine article.

But after this latest, I see that I was mistaken.  He resorts to the same kind of lying misrepresentation and claims without reference, the same kinds of self-contradiction, the same kinds of personal insults and innuendo as his mentor.

Nobody except Ainslie is blocked from replying directly to this "tread", unless Stefan has blocked them for some reason of his own.

Now... just where have I suggested that gmeast is in error for using "PWM percentages to define his power percentages?" I'd like to see a link to the precise place I said that and just how I may have said it..... since I've carried out tutorials on just how to use digital oscilloscopes and their math functions including live realtime integration of instantaneous power curves to give total energy integrals.........

And surely gmeast knows that only people who are registered on that forum are allowed to see the images... unlike here, where all is revealed to everyone who is curious.

And I'm also wondering just where anyone insulted gmeast personally yet. But we can certainly start, if that's how he wants to play.
Even though he has now revealed himself as a bigoted, sexist, bloviating idiot liar who contradicts himself then whines about it later trying to change the meaning. 'NOT MORE THAN 0.8 VOLTS'.... well, if it was not more than, say 0.7 volts, or not more than 0.78 volts.... why not say that then?  Gmeast reported a voltage drop of 0.8 volts on his 24 volt battery supply, plain and simple, and now he's trying to weasel out of that report.
The facts remain:
Gmeast found that the 555 timer circuit in the Quantum article did not perform as claimed.
Gmeast is not using the circuit published by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not using an equivalent load to that used by Ainslie.
Gmeast is not operating at the same frequency as Ainslie.
And so on. In short, he has actually refuted Ainslie's claims in the Quantum article by NOT BEING ABLE to reproduce her effects using the published circuit, or even another circuit operating at the claimed duty cycle and frequency of the Quantum article. He has reported these facts and then he has proceeded to allow distortions of the interpretation of these facts to proceed unchecked. The Quantum circuit has no diode, no mosfet gate driver, and has a timer that produces a 96 percent ON duty cycle at the load. This is not the circuit gmeast is testing or reporting on.

Hi guys,


I've just built what was easiest for me to build.  I can't afford any expensive scopes or analyzers, nor will any companies loan one to me.  I built a real nice digital Poly-Phase PWM for the work I was doing with Bob Boyce's 3-Phase Toroid self-battery-charging thingy that Johan, down in South Africa got the world excited about ... and me too.  It hasn't worked out because Johan has hushed up (it was supposed to be an open-source effort ....NOT) and Bob Boyce has stopped emailing clues as to how it 'really works'.  I just got interested in the Ainslie thing because I have a good PWM, and a working engineering knowledge of most things, and I can solder.  I've come to the conclusion that it is very hard to use electrical power, then through some means of conversion, or alteration, turn it back into another usable form of electricity with a gain.  But ... I truly believe that there can be a Heat-Equivalent Gain in a system ... that is 'Apples IN, and Oranges OUT instead of Apples IN and Apples OUT. 


I'm actually setting out to do very much what Rosemary did initially with the (what I call) the Equilibrium Heat Loss Test.  But, I will first characterize my batteries as part of the test regime and run my new heater tests within the margins of the batteries' discharge curves.  I will not try and determine power into the system using 'power shunt' calculations although they can be valid if you know how to deal with current lag and so on.  My circuit is the same as the one shown in the 2009 publication.   It shows a 'recovery diode' in that publication ... you guys call it a "flyback diode" ... as if you guys really know what "flyback" means in engineering terms.  BUT ... there is one main difference with my hardware ... I'm running my PWM and FET Gate Driver off of the 'bottom battery of my 24V stack (2 x 12V x 7Ah SLA batteries).  There will be NO chance for arguing power 'somehow' entering the system from a separate control circuit source such as a function generator.

Regards

I am puzzled about the scope traces though. The displayed "numbers in boxes" don't seem to agree very well with what the trace shows.

I count about 19 full cycles in 6 horizontal divisions, at 0.5 microsecond per division.  This gives me 19/0.000003 or about 6.33 MegaHertz for the oscillation frequency.
Am I making a silly math error again?

I know more than you hope I know. 


In the 2002 Quantum Mag article there is NO diode.  I never could get that to work.  Ainslie never claimed to use any gate driver chips.  Only I have because I have not been completely successful with the 555 circuit, only with my digital PWM and driver chip.  My PWM and UCC27322 driver chip takes about 1/4 (or so) the power of the 555 circuit anyway.  Who would want to use the 555?

Hey Gm

Not bustin your chops, but, cmos 555 is VERY efficient. at 5v  50ua  yes micro amps

At 12v 150ua max 400ua   All less than 1ma   Thats pretty good in my book. ;]

Also they handle up to 3mhz vs the regular 555

Now you know more than ever. ;]

MaGs

Actually, a 555 charges up a capacitor and discharges it through a resistor wasting ALL the energy into heat.
In my book that does not even come close to the word efficient.
But it is needed for the timing interval.

Lol the cmos555 uses much smaller caps than normal 555. Here is a data sheet for ya.

Im not against pwm chips. I just wanted to clarify that the cmos 555 is a fine circuit. Using 2 of these LMC555, we are still below GM's claim that his 2 ICs use 1/4 of the power of a 555.  Using 2 lmc555, 1 as a freq oscillator and on as the pwm(shown below) using 12v input, these 2 chips would consume 300ua to 800ua max. 
12v/.8ma = 9.6mw = 2 lmc555 max

So what is your pwm IC spec for power consumed at 12v?

Its not a real big deal, but GMs statement might be misleading. 555 is not a useless IC.

MaGs

Gmeast.... thank you for proving my point. Your work was unable to make her circuit given in the Quantum magazine article work as claimed.

Now.... I hope you are aware of the prevarication that Ainslie indulges in with respect to her schematics.

Please note the description given for the schematic in the pdf you just linked. I have attached it below as an image. You can see, I hope, that she represents this NEW schematic, containing the diode, as the circuit used in the experiment reported in the Quantum magazine article.  Is the diode a significant difference, do you think? Which report of the experiment do you think is correct? When do you think people started working with a diode in that position? Are you even aware at all of my work, or Glen's work, or .99's work, with that circuit, with and without the diode?

And in the present case, the 5 mosfet circuit, there have been no less than FIVE different schematics claimed to have been used, and even now there are two different schematics given, in the two papers "published" on Rossi's JNP.

Just to drive the point home: In the 2009 "publication" you have linked, Ainslie claims to have used the circuit including the diode. Yet this diode was NOT in fact used in the original experiment, nor does it appear in the schematic given in the Quantum publication.